Welcome, Neighbor!

About Me

I am a Ph.D. student at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. I study the History of Biblical Interpretation, which includes Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. My interests are religion, politics, TV, movies, and reading.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Timothy Keller and Sam Allberry. 90 Days in John 14-17, Romans, James. The Good Book Company, 2017. See here to purchase the book.

Timothy Keller and Sam Allberry are pastors. As the title indicates, this book goes through John 14-17, Romans, and James.

An advantage to this book is that it clarifies biblical passages.
For example, Romans 14 discusses how stronger Christians who eat meat
are to respect the scruples of the weaker Christians who do not eat
meat. Paul in v 15 exhorts the stronger Christians not to destroy the
weaker Christians for the sake of meat. How can eating meat around
weaker Christians destroy them? According to Keller and Allberry, if
the weaker Christians violate their conscience and eat meat just to fit
in, then they are placing themselves on the slippery slope of
disregarding their conscience. That is a helpful way to make sense of
the passage.

The interpretation of James 1:5-8 was also helpful, at least in its
main point. James 1:5-8 says that people who ask God for wisdom will
receive it, unless they waver or are double-minded. Keller and Allberry
state that the passage does NOT mean that “If you have ever questioned
or struggled or wrestled, don’t expect God to give you anything.”
Rather, they think it means that “If you come to God hedging your
bets—-asking for help while also looking elsewhere for help—-then don’t
expect to find help from the Lord.” This is unclear: are Keller and
Allberry saying that a person should just ask God for help, wait, and do
nothing else practically to solve their problems? Their main point,
though, is that a person should be sincere in asking God for wisdom: a
person should not just be hedging his or her bets, merely sampling God.
That makes sense.

The book also wrestles with the question of whether James 1:14-15
means that every sick Christian will be healed after being anointed with
oil. Overall, this is an edifying book, which addressed
thought-provoking issues.

The book was not exactly academic, though. It largely focused on the
text of Scripture and Scripture application instead of quoting
secondary sources or renowned Christian thinkers. That is all right,
but readers should keep in mind that there are more interpretations out
there. For instance, Paul in Romans 2:21 is discussing the hypocrisy of
certain Jews, and he asks them if they claim to abhor idolatry, while
robbing temples. Keller and Allberry state that “there is no record of
Jews taking idol-statues from pagan temples,” so they interpret Paul as
figurative in this verse: “They may ‘abhor idols’ outwardly, but if
inwardly they find meaning in power, comfort, possessions, sex etc.,
then they are idolaters.”

The thing is, there is a legitimate way to interpret that passage that is literal. Lloyd Gaston, on page 231 of Paul and the Torah, offers his view of what Paul may have had in mind in Romans 2:21:

“[Josephus] uses the hierosyl- root to refer to robbery from the temple contributions of Jews from Asia in Ant. 16.45, 164, 168; to describe robbery from the Jerusalem temple itself in JW 1.654 (=Ant. 17.163), 5.562, and Ant. 12.359; and in referring to Manetho’s accusation that Jews robbed Egyptian temples before the Exodus (AgAp 1.249, 318f).”

There is a possibility that Gaston, Keller, and Allberry are all
correct: the Jews who robbed from the Jerusalem temple were idolaters in
the sense that they valued money over God’s commandment not to steal.
Still, the treatment of Romans 2:21 by Keller and Allberry highlights
that, overall, this book is more of a homiletic commentary than a
historical commentary. Some may like this. Personally, I think the
book would have been richer had it been a mixture of both.

The book contains a tension that is characteristic of many Reformed
books, and even Christian books that address grace and assurance of
salvation. On the one hand, Keller and Allberry stress that salvation
is a gift of grace: we do not have to scale a mountain to receive it; we
are accepted by God when we have faith in what God has done; and we
cannot trust our own efforts to keep God’s standards to earn salvation,
since we fall short. On the other hand, Keller and Allberry say that
obedience to God is a sign that we have genuinely been saved and that
not all who profess to be Christians are actual Christians. I think
that the two ideas run contrary to each other, at least in terms of the
psychological effect that they can have on the believer. The first idea
is comforting, the second, not so much. The tension is understandable,
though, considering the different biblical texts with which Keller and
Allberry are interacting, and the co-existing themes of grace and
practical righteousness within the Bible.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Cross Focused Reviews. My review is honest!

Monday, January 30, 2017

I visited another church last Sunday. I got up early, and I figured
that I might as well attend the church’s early service, since I had a
lot to do that day and I wanted to free up more time in the afternoon.

I have visited this church before. Usually on this blog, I have
called it the “Word of Faith church.” That is not its official title,
but the reason that I have called it that is that I have heard Word of
Faith or prosperity-like teaching from its pulpit. A guest preacher
there actually referred positively to Kenneth Hagin as he talked about
the power of words, so I placed the church in the “Word of Faith” box.

After visiting the church last Sunday, though, I question my
assessment that the church preaches the prosperity Gospel. I heard the
opposite, actually. The pastor was saying that our lives become a
testimony when we are moving upstream. He said in his opening prayer
that God has redeemed us from a world of always wanting our own way and
having our own god. He criticized those whose primary goal is a
prosperous retirement, where they relax and play golf; as far as he is
concerned, our vision for life should be so much larger than that. He
stressed eternal riches. Preaching through the Book of Joshua, he noted
the repeated statement that the Levites will not get land because God
is their inheritance, and he said that the reason this statement was
continually repeated was that God was reminding the Israelites that,
ultimately, God was their inheritance, too, not just the inheritance of
the Levites. Preaching about the story of Dan’s idolatry in Judges 18,
the pastor said that idolatry competes for our devotion, and he
mentioned aspects of a comfortable middle-class lifestyle as examples of
that.

The pastor’s daughter went up to speak near the end of the service,
and she was saying that it is difficult for her to tithe. Her family
tithes, and she compares their financial situation with that of her
friends from work, who do not tithe. Her friends have such luxuries as
boats and big campers. She believes, however, that tithing is
importance because it allows her to be part of what God is doing. Her
testimony differed from the prosperity narrative of “I tithed, and God
provided me with more money!”

On what exactly they believe that God is doing, they were not overly
specific. The pastor said, though, that our life should include working
with other people in God’s work. Another speaker mentioned people
associated with the church who were assisting Syrian refugees. I needed
to be reminded of that basic Christian truth: to provide for people who
are in desperate need. I am not endorsing a specific political stance
in this post on President Trump’s policy regarding the Syrian refugees,
but it is easy for me to become so preoccupied with political debates
and the political figures I like and dislike, that I can forget or
compromise basic Christianity.

I am not saying that prosperity preachers cannot assert the sorts of
sentiments that I heard at church yesterday. But they do focus a lot on
God prospering people materially, or God helping people to actualize
their dreams and hopes. The focus was different at the church that I
attended yesterday.

NOTE: I’m shutting down comments for this post because I don’t want comments on the Trump policy.

Apocalyptic literature can include such features as visions, a human
taking a trip to heaven, revelation from an angel, predictions of
eschatological salvation and the defeat of evil, the usage of symbols
(i.e., beasts), and past or current events written as if they were
foretold long ago as prophecies. Apocalypses often seek to reassure
suffering people that God will intervene, defeat evil, and vindicate the
righteous. According to Taylor, apocalyptic literature “contains a
significant proportion of those features that define an apocalypse,
whether or not the writing in question fully qualifies as an apocalypse”
(page 202). Examples of apocalyptic literature are I Enoch, the
biblical Book of Daniel, and the Book of Revelation.

The advantages of Taylor’s book are many. Taylor’s book can provide
an introduction to apocalyptic literature, as it discusses its features,
summarizes apocalyptic books, and interacts with specific passages from
the literature itself. Taylor also refers to secondary literature,
translations, and language guides (i.e., to Hebrew and Aramaic),
explaining what those resources are and, in some cases, their reception
within scholarship (i.e., is the resource considered out of date?).
This can assist those who want to go deeper and explore apocalyptic
literature further. At the same time, Taylor’s book itself has depth,
in areas, as Taylor summarizes and evaluates scholarly debates about
such topics as the definition, milieu, and origin of apocalyptic
literature. His Appendix, “Antecedents of Apocalyptic Literature,” is
especially noteworthy, as Taylor identifies, explains, and evaluates
scholarly ideas about the sources for apocalyptic literature, which
includes the following proposals: Canaanite mythology, Akkadian
prophecy, Mesopotamian traditions, Egyptian apocalypticism, wisdom
literature, different theological views about the Temple (i.e., should
it be rebuilt, or will God provide a new Temple from heaven?),
Hellenistic syncretism, Persian religion, opposition to imperial
authority, and prophetic literature. Many believe that Jewish
apocalypticism resulted from Persian influence, but Taylor explains the
limitations of that view. Also, Taylor provides a helpful glossary at
the end of the book.

In terms of critiques, I have a few. Taylor spent a lot of space
defining and illustrating grammatical concepts such as metaphor and
simile, and I questioned how necessary that was to understanding
apocalyptic literature. Taylor had a chapter on preaching about
apocalyptic texts, but he seemed to avoid theological questions that
might trouble conservative Christians. Does apocalyptic literature
contain wishful thinking and unfulfilled prophecy, a hope for an
eschatological salvation that would soon materialize but actually did
not? Does that show that biblical apocalyptic literature is the work of
human beings rather than divine revelation? Is apocalyptic literature a
pious fraud, since it is attributed to people who lived a long time ago
but did not actually write it? Such questions are not only relevant to
whether one should see biblical apocalyptic literature as sacred or as
divinely-inspired, but they also raise interesting questions about
apocalyptic literature itself: Did, for example, the authors of
apocalyptic literature believe what they were writing, as they wrote
history as prophecy and attributed their writing to a figure of the
past, or were they writing the document as a pious fraud that would give
people some hope, or influence them to behave in a certain way? The
book would have been better had Taylor explored such issues.

In addition, while Taylor briefly mentioned the difference of opinion
between Paul Hanson and Stephen Cook, Taylor should have explored that
territory further. Instead, Taylor often assumed that apocalyptic
literature came from marginalized and suffering communities, whereas
Cook presented a case that it could come from establishment circles.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!

Friday, January 27, 2017

William Boekestein. Bible Studies on Mark. Reformed Fellowship, 2016. See here to purchase the book.

William Boekestein pastors the Immanuel Fellowship Church, which is located in Kalamazoo, Michigan. His book, Bible Studies on Mark, goes through the Gospel of Mark, reflecting on stories and sayings of Jesus that are presented in that Gospel.

Here are some thoughts:

A. Boekestein says that he will focus primarily on the Gospel of
Mark, rather than what other Gospels present. Occasionally, he does
quote other Gospels, and he seems to have a rather harmonizing approach
to the text, treating all of the Gospels as consistent and as containing
the same Christian message. Boekestein interprets the Gospel of Mark
in reference to his larger Christian theology, which includes seeing the
Kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom and Jesus being God incarnate.
There are biblical scholars who argue that such themes are foreign to
the Gospel of Mark. Boekestein does not usually highlight what is
distinct to the Gospel of Mark itself, as the stories that he discusses
are found in the other Gospels, as well. Overall, though, Boekestein
comments on the stories and sayings of Jesus as they appear in the
Gospel of Mark.

B. The book was a thoughtful and an engaging read. I agree with
Jason Van Vliet’s statement on the back cover of the book that
“Boekestein dishes up a delicious and nutritious spiritual meal.” A
recurring point that I appreciated was that we should not idolize
people’s approval.

C. There were parts of the book that made me wince. On pages 74-75,
Boekestein states: “When churches really begin to imitate the apostles,
they find themselves dealing with the occult, with drug addicts,
pedophiles, homosexual offenders, pornographers, and the like (cf. 1
Cor. 6:9-11).” Boekestein was saying this in the context of discussing
the church’s war against spiritual darkness. Perhaps he could have made
this point without demonizing homosexuals, many of whom are good people
coping with a sexual orientation that they did not ask for. Moreover,
in my opinion, Boekestein also should have highlighted sins that
left-wingers condemn, such as greed, exploitation, and oppression.

The book also displays a Christian anti-Judaism stance (which is
critical of the Jewish religion, not the Jewish people). That made me
wince, since there were Pharisees, such as Hillel, who said beautiful
and spiritual things, and rabbinic literature has its share of edifying
insights. Perhaps Boekestein felt that he was being faithful to the
ideology of the Gospel of Mark, and that could be, though there are
interpreters who highlight the continuity between Jesus and Judaism in
the Gospel of Mark. The book would have been better had Boekestein
acknowledged that Judaism taught good things while saying that there was
corruption within its midst, as occurs in many religions.

On page 128, Boekestein states that “Thoughtful reflection on hell
should rattle a believer out of sinful self-absorption.” There was some
fire-and-brimstone in this book, and I do not fault Boekestein for
that, since there is fire-and-brimstone in the Gospel of Mark.
Boekestein’s focus in the book was not on fire-and-brimstone. Still, I
question whether thinking about hell is a psychologically healthy way to
become less self-absorbed. I can somewhat understand Boekestein’s
point: that thinking about hell can get our minds off ourselves and our
own glory and shake us out of self-absorption, but it can also lead to a
lot of fear. Plus, why do believers have to worry about hell, when
Jesus has saved them? Boekestein says that thinking about hell can
encourage believers to witness to others, but he also seems to imply
that believers, on some level, should have some fear of hell.

On page 135, Boekestein states: “Sadly, those who with an unbelieving
heart do such ‘big-ticket’ activities as worshiping, tithing,
witnessing or volunteering will still hear Christ say those dreadful
words: ‘I never knew you’ (Matt. 7:23).” Wouldn’t that lead to people
second-guessing themselves when they try to do the right thing? Is that
really necessary?

D. Boekestein writes from a Reformed perspective, which holds that
God must spiritually resurrect people from spiritual death for them to
believe. At times, this allows Boekestein to take parts of the text
seriously, such as Jesus’ statement in Mark 4:11-12 that he is telling
parables to confuse unbelievers. Boekestein explained that passage
well.

E. There were occasions when this book taught me something, in terms
of information. This was particularly the case on page 160. On that
page, Boekestein addresses the question of whether Jews were allowed to
execute people in first century Palestine. He says that they could and
cites a secondary source. Although there are scholars who assert the
contrary, perhaps there were different rules at different times. In any
case, Boekestein provides a piece of the puzzle. Also on page 160 is a
quotation of Augustine, who says that Christians submitted to the pagan
emperor Julian out of obedience to God.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Cross Focused Reviews. My review is honest!

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Ashley
Stafford is a volunteer online blogger for treatmesothelioma.org. She has a very special interest in helping Veterans
as her father served in the Navy. Along with donating her time to help
our armed forces, she has an extreme curiosity in all types of rare diseases,
especially cancer. One of her goals is to learn as much about cancer and the
various treatments available in hopes raise more awareness on what may or may
not be kept secret to the general public.

Mesothelioma Doctors and Specialists

In the unfortunate circumstance of being diagnosed with
mesothelioma, the patient should absolutely consider an oncologist as well as a
mesothelioma specialist (if they haven’t been referred already). When it comes to treating mesothelioma, it is
not uncommon for the treatment process to encompass a team of professionals
with multiple doctors in order to come up with the best possible treatment
plan.

These medical professionals include but are not limited to
several types of specialists whom are capable of specifically treating
mesothelioma because their field of expertise overlaps between all of the mesothelioma treatment
options available:

·Thoracic Surgeons (chest surgeon)

·Oncologists (cancer specialist)

·Pulmonologists (lung specialist)

·Chemotherapy and radiation specialists

·General Surgeons

·Physical therapists

·Mesothelioma specialists

Most leading mesothelioma specialists have their clinical
degree in thoracic oncology (which concentrates on lung, mid-section, and
esophageal malignancies).

Mesothelioma doctors
and specialists are also knowledgeable in modern clinical trials, medicines
and surgeries.With all of these options
on the table, they will be able to tailor a treatment plan specifically for
each particular case and patient.

Mesothelioma Cancer Is Diversely Young

Current medical understanding of malignant mesothelioma
is still in its infancy. Specialists have recognized this and have stated that research
still needs to be continued in the following areas:

·DNA and molecular damage

·Possible combination of asbestos and another
cause

·The speed and warning signs

·Prognosis accuracy

·Information about how the disease spreads

·Better treatment options and control

Well Known Mesothelioma Specialists

As mentioned earlier, in most cases the best path for
treatment is with a team of specialists that provide interdisciplinary care for
mesothelioma patients. The best strategy for treating mesothelioma depends on
the specific type, which is basically the specific organ in the body where it
is developing.That being said, below is
a list of the top mesothelioma specialists in the country, organized by the
type of mesothelioma they specialize in.

Other Great Surgeons With Experience in Treating Mesothelioma

Questions To
Ask Before Making Your Decision

You are putting your life in a
doctor’s hands, so how do you decide which one is right for you? The following
questions may help you make a better and a much more informed decision:

·Does the doctor have experience in treating
mesothelioma? How much experience? How many cases has he/she treated in the
past year?

·Does he/she have the education to be
considered a specialist?

·Are your concerns addressed?

·Are you encouraged to ask questions?

·Did the doctor listen with concern and
respect?

·Does the doctor actively participate in
clinical research?

It might also be helpful to know
if the doctor has experience in treating mesothelioma at every stage of the
disease. The reason this could be important is because specific treatments are
administered based on what stage of cancer you are in.

Ultimately, you will have to
decide who will treat you. You should feel comfortable with the doctor you
choose and believe they are equipped to handle your disease. You and your
family should have a good working relationship with your doctor and always be
involved in the treatment decisions.

Final Things To Consider

You also may want to consider:

·Are you
willing to travel? Some top cancer treat centers may be a great distance from
you. Travelling while undergoing treatment can be stressful and time consuming.
Find out what treatment center your doctor collaborates with.

·Is there
financial aid available or travel and lodging accommodations? Some
organizations offer grants for mesothelioma patients to travel to a top
treatment center as there are a limited number of specialists available to
treat mesothelioma. One such organization is the Meso Foundation.

Making sure you get the best care
takes a little effort, but with the right team of doctors, your prognosis could
improve significantly.

I went to church last Sunday. The church had been closed for two weeks due to inclement weather.

The man who was leading worship last Sunday was telling us that he
found the time off to be edifying. He is often busy, and his time at
home from church gave him an opportunity to hear from God. He said that
he wouldn’t have been as prepared to lead worship without that time. I
could somewhat identify with what he was saying, only it was the
opposite for me. Going to church gave me an opportunity to stop, take a
breather, and think, since I spent time walking to and from church and
was thinking during that time.

The sermon was about unity. The pastor said that he will do a series
on this topic. What has inspired it has been the political divisions
among people. The pastor was promoting unity around the commands of
Christ. Political divisions have been on my mind as of late. I get
frustrated when I read political debates, and I have to take heed not to
demonize those who believe differently from me.

The pastor was also saying that the Godhead itself is united, in that
it works together harmoniously in the work of salvation. He said that
the Father sent the Son, the Son paid the price for our redemption, and
the Holy Spirit preserves us. That made me think: Do I really believe
that the Holy Spirit preserves believers? What about Christians who
leave the faith, and who wonder where God was when they were departing?
Why didn’t the Holy Spirit preserve them in the faith? I suppose one
can say that the Holy Spirit tried to do so, but the apostates resisted
the Holy Spirit. I cannot read the apostates’ mind, but I tend to
accept their word that they wanted to stay in the faith, but they just
couldn’t because there was no proof for it, and God was doing nothing to
reveal Godself to them or to keep them in the fold. Actually, I cannot
speculate about what God was and was not doing, but they felt
abandoned, or at least alone.

Do I rule out that the Holy Spirit ever preserves believers in the
faith? No. I just wonder how much of a rule of thumb it is, and how to
account for apparent exceptions.

After church, I saw that Great Clips was offering $7.99 haircuts. I
needed a haircut, so I decided to take advantage of this deal. The
people around me were talking about marriage. The hair stylist beside
me was saying that she tried marriage, and it just didn’t work out. The
person whose hair she was cutting talked about his two marriages, both
of which were for ten or more years. My hair stylist was saying that
she was married to her second husband for seventeen years, and now she
is married a third time and is seeing how that will turn out. She told
me that her second husband was verbally abusive to her, but her third
husband sticks up for her. I asked her how she gets along with her
third husband’s children, and she said they are like the Brady Bunch!

In these sorts of situations, I am hesitant to “witness.” I am
afraid that people will think that I as a Christian judge them, or that I
criticize them for failing to live up to a high standard. The night
before, I was reading the Catholic catechism and what it said about
divorce: it is against it and expects married couples to stay married,
with the help of the Holy Spirit. But I could not judge the woman
styling my hair. I myself wait and see how things will turn out. I am
not married to the church that I currently attend. I don’t think one
should be flippant, bailing out at the least offense. But is there
anything wrong with keeping one’s options open? Some environments are
healthier or better than others.

In any case, I’m sure what I just said can be critiqued, and rightly
so. Something that I found myself feeling, though, was empathy and hope
that things would work out for the hair stylist—-that she would find
compatibility with her husband, whatever trials may come. I believe in
cultivating a desire for somebody else’s well-being.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Time for another Current Events Write-Up, where I link to news and
opinion pieces and comment on them! As you might expect, the focus this
week is on Trump: the inauguration and his first days in office.

Trump’s use of the term “America First” in his inaugural address was
controversial. For critics, Trump is echoing the America First
Committee of the 1930’s, which opposed American entry into World War
II. For many critics, the America First Committee was an anti-Semitic,
pro-Nazi organization.

Let’s respond to that! First of all, a rabbi delivered one of the
prayers at Trump’s inauguration. Why shouldn’t that be considered when
we deliberate on whether or not Trump is anti-Semitic?

Second, Trump does not always know the historical significance of the
catchphrases that he uses. He just uses them because he likes them.
See Jonah Goldberg’s article here.

Third, the America First Committee was not, in itself, anti-Semitic
or pro-Nazi, even though there were anti-Semites in its midst. To quote
Bill Kauffman’s article:

“In September 1940, Bob Stuart and several Yale Law School
classmates—including future President Gerald Ford and future Supreme
Court Justice Potter Stewart—founded the America First Committee, the
largest antiwar organization in American history…Speaking of which,
there were Kennedy footprints all over America First…Joe Kennedy kicked
in a few bucks, and John F. Kennedy sent the AFC a check for $100, with a
note reading ‘what you all are doing is vital.’ Mr. Stuart’s long-time
friend Sargent Shriver, Kennedy in-law and the last pro-life Democrat to
run on the national ticket, was present at the creation…The America
First story has been told well by historians Justus Doenecke and Wayne
Cole. Its personalities ranged from Main Street Republicans to prairie
populists, from pacifist novelists to Midwestern manufacturers. Behind
its banner stood figures as various as Socialist Norman Thomas, American
Legion commander Hanford MacNider, and Sears Roebuck chairman Robert E.
Wood. And, of course, Charles Lindbergh.”

Fourth, Pat Buchanan’s column
explained what Trump meant by “America First,” as it quoted excerpts
from Trump’s inaugural address. What does “America First” mean for us
and for other countries? Read Pat’s column and find out! Pat also
responds to the charge that Trump’s inaugural was dark by saying:
“Indeed, it carries echoes of FDR’s second inaugural: ‘I see one-third
of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. … The test of our
progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'”

The Early Days of the Trump Presidency

I was depressed to read this Mother Jones
article, which said that one of Trump’s first acts as President was to
suspend an Obama Administration policy that helped low-income homeowners
with their mortgages. I mean, did not Trump just give a speech about
the forgotten Americans? Why make things more difficult for
economically struggling people?

Fortunately, the Trump Administration quickly reversed its own policy,
according to this CNBC article. The CNBC article explains the
rationale behind Trump’s initial move to suspend the Obama
Administration’s policy: there was concern among Republicans that the
program would have to be bailed out. But the Trump Administration caved
in to pressure and reversed what it was about to do. Criticisms of
Trump do get on my nerves, but they may be necessary to keep him on
track, from a progressive perspective.

There was the hooplah over how many people were at President Trump’s
inauguration, and how that compares with the number of people at
President Obama’s inauguration. I liked something that Cokie Roberts
said on last Sunday’s ABC This Week:

COKIE ROBERTS, ABC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: But see,
that’s what I think we’ve done is right. We shouldn’t take the bait. And
what — here we are, having a whole conversation and leads in the papers
and all of that about what Trump said…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I couldn’t disagree more.
ROBERTS: Well, no, no, no, no.
STEPHANOPOULOS: He doesn’t tell the truth…
ROBERTS: But — but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: — what are we supposed to do?
ROBERTS: I know. But — but — it — what he’s managed to do was to
minimize the incredible demonstrations yesterday all over the world of
women turning out by more than a million and instead of that being what
everybody is talking about today, it’s Donald Trump again…

This raises interesting questions. On the one hand, I don’t like how
the media make every little thing Trump says and does into Watergate.
On the other hand, one can argue that the media, in doing so, actually
helps Donald Trump by making the entire news cycle about Donald Trump.
On the PBS documentary “The Choice 2016,” someone commented that Trump
actually liked the coverage when his past marriage was crumbling because
at least people were talking about him: he loved the attention! It is
obvious that Trump creates hooplah, and media reaction plays a role in
this. I hope that this can be channeled into productive directions,
though: that Trump’s hooplah can challenge the establishment, start
important discussions, and accomplish needed reforms.

Over at Townhall, Rachel Marsden has an article about
Trump’s move to abandon the TPP. Marsden agrees with Trump on this,
but her article highlights a variety of nuances, some of which favor the
TPP. For one, the TPP could undermine China’s unfair protectionism and
give the U.S. a greater foothold in Asia, undermining Chinese economic
dominance there. (On the latter, John McCain made a similar argument.)
Second, trade between China and the U.S. benefits the wealthy of both
countries, and that has sometimes defused tensions between the U.S. and
China. Although she raises these nuances, Marsden ultimately opposes
the TPP because she believes that it undermines American manufacturing
and benefits Wall Street rather than Main Street.

A. The book offered helpful insights about forgiveness. Two in
particular come to mind. First, Gale used the analogy of his son having
a piece of pork on his cheek. Gale and his wife listened to their son
as he was talking about something serious, but they were trying not to
laugh at the pork on his cheek! Similarly, Gale argued, forgiveness may
entail interacting with an offender, without thinking about his or her
offense while doing so. That is an important point: Do I see people
primarily in reference to their offenses against me?

Second, Gale said
that the process of forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation is two
people sitting on the same side of the table, looking at the offense.
Both the offender and the victim agree that the offense was wrong, and
they are trying to do something about it. Both concepts painted a
picture of forgiveness, clarifying what forgiveness is.

B. Gale makes clear that forgiveness is not necessarily forgetting
an offense or being gullible. Gale would have strengthened this point
had he provided Scriptural references to support it. Yvonne Ortega did
so in a book that she wrote about forgiveness, entitled Moving from Broken to Beautiful through Forgiveness (Salem: Trinity Press International, 2016).

C. In Matthew 18:21-35, there is the Parable of the Unforgiving
Servant. A king forgives the debt of a servant who owed him lots of
money, the servant turns around and refuses to forgive someone who owed
him a small amount of money, then the king retracts his forgiveness of
that servant. Gale asks if this teaches that God will take away the
salvation of a person who refuses to forgive. Gale rests on the answer
that, if a person refuses to forgive, then that may indicate that he or
she has never been truly saved in the first place. The problem with
this, however, is that the parable states that the servant had been
forgiven of his debts, before the forgiveness was rescinded. That means
the servant had been saved, right?

D. Related to (C.), Gale does well to stress that we should not
immediately jump to the conclusion that a person who refuses to forgive
is not truly saved. Rather, he says that it is a possibility to
consider. This reflects the book’s compassionate and a pastoral tone,
one that recognizes how difficult forgiveness can be; for Gale, one
needs God’s help in order to forgive. It also highlights the importance
of reflection in trying to forgive, as people think about why they find
forgiveness to be so difficult, while meditating on God’s mercy towards
them. That theme recurs in Gale’s book.

E. Gale quotes Charles Spurgeon’s troubling statement that “Unless
you have forgiven others, you read your own death warrant when you
repeat the Lord’s prayer.” After all, the Lord’s prayer states,
“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matthew 6:12). That
is a difficult statement, and I have sometimes thought of excluding it
from my own recitation of the Lord’s Prayer! But I have kept it in
because I can use the daily reminder that I need forgiveness from God
for my sins, and that I need to forgive others. I hope I am not reading
my own death warrant in doing so! In any case, Gale’s inclusion of
that Spurgeon quote did provoke thought, on my part.

F. There were cases in which Gale was telling a compelling story or
addressing a compelling question, but his conclusion was rather
lackluster. Two examples come to mind. First, Gale told his conversion
story: he went to church for a long time and failed to understand the
Gospel’s relevance to his own life, but then, due to God’s effectual
grace, he came to understand it and was saved! I could understand his
pre-conversion narrative, but he could have given the reader more
details about what led him towards salvation: what insights or
experiences did God use to enlighten his heart? Second, Gale was
interacting with Jesus’ difficult statement in Luke 17:4 that, if a
brother sins against us seven times a day and says to us “I repent,” we
are to forgive that brother. Gale asks a very good question: if the
brother is sinning against us seven times a day, does that indicate that
this brother is not truly repentant? Should we forgive that brother if
that is the case? Gale lands on the answer that we should be open to
reconciliation. That may be a sensible resolution, on some level, but I
was hoping for a little more after all that wrestling!

G. If you are looking for comprehensive OSHA-like regulations on
forgiveness, then this book may be somewhat of a disappointment to you.
Allow me to illustrate. You want to get forgiveness right, because God
won’t forgive you if you don’t forgive others (Matthew 16:14-15); you
don’t want to read your own death warrant when you recite the Lord’s
Prayer, as Spurgeon said! Okay, Jesus says that, if our brother sins
against us, we are to go to him and rebuke him (Luke 17:3). All the
time? Should we rebuke someone every time our feelings are hurt? Could
that make matters worse? What about Proverbs 9:8, which advises
against rebuking a scorner? Gale does not mention this verse, but is it
relevant? Gale does say, though, that we can forgive a person apart
from rebuking that person or that person repenting, but his hope is that
such unilateral forgiveness will set the stage for reconciliation, if
God provides the opportunity. If God provides the opportunity? Aren’t
we supposed to “go” rebuke that person, as Jesus says, which seems to be
different from waiting for God to provide an opportunity? And do we
have to spend a lot of time with that person as a friend, after
“reconciliation”? On the one hand, Gale says that we should not be
“hardened” and “standoffish” (page 77). On the other hand, Gale says
that Jesus’ command for us to love our enemies does not mean that we
have to be buddy-buddy with them, but rather that we are to “treat
fellow sinners as image bearers of God rather than as objects of our
disdain (see Luke 6:27-36)” (pages 85-86).

I’ll be candid: part of my concern may be a desire on my part for
some sort of loophole to the requirement to forgive others. At the same
time, I do think that the book would have been better had Gale explored
more nuances, thorny issues, or possible exceptions to the rule. And
yet, I still should give honor to whom honor is do: I applaud Gale for
the wrestling with issues that he does do in this book, as well as the
helpful insights that he presents, including those that I mention in
(G.).

I received a complimentary book from the publisher through Cross Focused Reviews. My review is honest!

Monday, January 23, 2017

John Thornton. Jesus’ Terrible Financial Advice: Flipping the Tables on Peace, Prosperity, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2017. See here to buy the book.

John Thornton is a licensed accountant, has a doctorate in Accounting
from Washington State University, and teaches Accounting Ethics at
Azuza Pacific University.

I’d like to talk briefly about the description of the book on the
back cover and on Amazon, then I will discuss whether the book conformed
to my expectations, and whether that was a good or a bad thing.

John and his wife experienced an 80 per cent reduction in income
because they were pursuing educational goals, yet they went on to have
kids, had freedom from debt, took vacations, and saw their net worth
double. John wanted to write a book about how they accomplished this,
sharing what he considered to be biblical principles. But a problem
arose: John looked at over 1,300 Bible verses on money, and they
challenged what he believed about money and ran contrary to the book
that he intended to write.

After providing this background information, the back cover goes on
to say about the book that John actually did write: “While it answers
many of the practical questions we have—-like does Jesus want me to be
rich or poor? Should I give to everybody who asks? Is it wrong to
save?—-it goes beyond these concerns. It asks bigger questions, gives
bolder answers, and offers a more comprehensive view of stewardship.”

After reading the book’s description, my expectation was that the
book would be about how Christians should not be trying to attain
financial success and comfort but rather should give more of their money
away, particularly to the poor. I was also hoping for insightful,
sensible, and yet faithful-to-the-biblical-text answers to perplexing
questions. Such questions include whether Jesus really expects us to
give to everyone who asks us for something, a la Matthew 5:42 and Luke
6:30, and whether Jesus in Matthew 6:19-21 forbids people to have a
savings account when he exhorts them not to lay up treasures on earth.

That’s the back cover! Here are some of my reactions to the book itself:

A. The book was sometimes disappointing in addressing perplexing
questions about biblical passages. On whether Jesus expects us to give
to whomever asks, Thornton essentially said that he did not know. Yet,
Thornton did well to raise additional considerations: he noted, for
example, that God does not give us everything that we request. While
there were disappointments in the book, there were also times when
Thornton offered a profound look at Scripture. Thornton interpreted
Jesus’ exhortation to the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and
give it to the poor in light of Job’s statement in Job 13:15 that, even
if God slays him, Job will trust in God. Job lost everything, yet he
still had God, and that was what mattered. Also, Thornton’s
interpretation of the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13) in
light of Jesus’ exhortation to the rich young ruler was masterful!

B. On the one hand, Thornton wants to take Jesus’ difficult
statements seriously. Thornton is critical of Christian attempts to
downplay Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” command, noting that Jesus took
that literally at his own trial and crucifixion. Thornton also
criticizes Christian attempts to downplay or soften Jesus’ statement to
the rich young ruler to sell everything and follow him. On the other
hand, Thornton says that wealth in Scripture is a blessing from God and
that is is all right for a Christian to be wealthy, as long as that
Christian does not idolize the wealth.

Thornton is integrating into his presentation a lot of Scriptural
teachings on wealth, and some of these teachings appear different from
one another. Proverbs, for example, has passages about how people can
gain wealth, and Thornton appeals to those. Yet, there are passages in
the New Testament that seem to be down on wealth. Overall, I think that
Thornton integrates these passages into a reasonable picture: that it
is acceptable to have money, yet we should look to God alone for our
provision and security, avoid greed, and give money to those in need
(i.e., the poor). One may think that Thornton is surrendering to a
comfortable suburban Christian mindset, but that would be unfair. The
back cover is accurate when it says that the book “asks bigger
questions, gives bolder answers, and offers a more comprehensive view of
stewardship.”

C. What about people who don’t have anything to give? On the one
hand, Thornton refers to Jesus’ statement in Luke 16:10 that those who
are faithful with little will be given more. Thornton states that those
who fail to give with the little that they have usually will not give
when they have a lot of money. On the other hand, Thornton says that
people who have nothing can give other things besides money, such as
forgiveness. The advice appears contradictory, but both ideas have
merit, and people can wrestle through these issues with reason and in
prayer.

D. Thornton recognizes that many people, and even many Christians,
do not rush to give. Thornton appeals to them with compassion and
empathy, encouraging them that they have so much to gain (and it is not
primarily financial) by following God’s principles on stewardship,
including the principle of giving. Thornton attempts to influence
people’s attitudes, while avoiding guilt-trips. The picture that he
painted was not only reasonable, but also compelling.

E. The book is not as neat as I expected it to be, but that was part
of its appeal. Thornton was engaging messy issues and different
Scriptural teachings, and I was eager to see what his conclusions would
be.

F. The book also had some funny stories. I think of Thornton’s
friend who asked awkward questions and went to Thornton’s dissertation
defense!

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Ted Leach. Companion to the Old Testament: For the Interpreter Within Each of Us. Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2013. See here to buy the book.

Ted Leach was a United Methodist pastor for four decades. His book, Companion to the Old Testament, is a survey of the contents and historical context of the Hebrew Bible, as well as various issues surrounding it.

Here are some thoughts about the book:

A. Leach is sensitive to the different interpretations of the Hebrew
Bible among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and even the different
interpretations within each religion. His discussion of different ideas
on Messianism within Judaism was impressive, as he surveyed different
modern Jewish ideas on Messianism and also talked about Maimonides’
views on the Messiah, as well as the concept of a suffering Messiah in
rabbinic passages. In my opinion, an introduction or a companion to the
Hebrew Bible should make readers aware that different communities
interpret the Hebrew Bible in different ways, since that can help them
to understand the world around them. Leach did not discuss every issue
that pertains to this, but his book can serve as a friendly
introduction.

B. A point that Leach makes more than once is that a Christian need
not interpret all of the biblical stories as historical to receive
spiritual edification from them. Leach did well to share how this is
the case in his own spiritual life, especially when he discussed his
personal interaction with the story of Moses’ rod becoming a serpent.
The book would have been better, perhaps, had Leach addressed the
question of whether the biblical stories’ writers deemed their stories
to be historical. There are things that Leach says that intersect with
this question: he echoes scholarly arguments, for example, that the
priestly author of Genesis 1 interacted with a Babylonian creation story
and transformed the Babylonian concept of the Sabbath. Leach also
refers to some of the biblical stories as camp-fire stories, which may
imply that the ancients saw the stories as just that, stories. Still,
one can easily get the impression in reading the Hebrew Bible that its
authors believed that its narratives represented God’s activity in
history, or historically accounted for how the Israelites arrived at
their current state (i.e., exile). By wrestling more with this issue,
Leach could have reinforced his argument that the Bible is not just
about our concerns and preconceptions but reflects an ancient mindset.

C. The book is an effective introduction and companion to the Hebrew
Bible because it makes readers aware that modern biblical scholarship
has questioned the historicity of certain narratives in the Bible, while
also explaining why. Conservatives may consider Leach’s use of
scholarship to be one-sided, in that it primarily refers to scholars
whom conservatives would consider to be liberal, and that would be a
valid point. Leach should have mentioned that there are scholars who
believe differently, while also saying that he himself accepts certain
conclusions. In some instances, Leach fails to integrate or reconcile
his conclusions. For instance, Leach says that there may have been some
sort of Exodus from Egypt, yet he also appears to agree with the
scholarly idea that the Israelites were originally native Canaanites.
On this issue, some scholars have suggested that ancient Israel may have
consisted of different groups of people: Semites who came from Egypt
and also native Canaanites, who moved to the central hills from
Canaanite cities. According to these scholars, the Semites from Egypt
contributed to ancient Israel the Exodus story, even though many
Israelites did not descend from those who came from Egypt. Similarly,
the Pilgrim story became part of the founding tradition of the United
States, even though most Americans do not descend from the Pilgrims.
Leach’s inclusion of such a point would have held together his arguments
about the Exodus and the Conquest.

D. In one place, Leach proposes that the Ten Commandments may not
have been from the mouth of God, but were a Midianite priestly document
discovered by Moses at what was previously a Midianite holy place.
Leach states that “This kind of miracle, rather than deMille’s
magic, seems more in keeping with the way God works in human history.”
Readers may wonder why we should entertain such an idea about the Ten
Commandments: is there any reason to believe that it was a Midianite
priestly document? Leach tossed that out as a possibility, but he did
not explain the grounds for the possibility. Leach could have
strengthened his argument by mentioning the Kenite hypothesis, by
showing how Moses or Sinai in the Bible relates to the Midianites, or by
arguing that the view that all of the Torah was spoken by God on Mount
Sinai is problematic, since the laws sometimes contradict each other.
There are ways for Leach to do this without writing an extensive,
distracting thesis: perhaps he could introduce his discussion by
mentioning Moses’ interaction with the Midianites, or include a brief
discussion of the Kenite hypothesis in an endnote.

E. Related to (D.), Leach should have attempted, in some manner, to
offer a model of divine revelation. People reading his book may wonder
how exactly the Bible is a revelation from God, if it reflects different
human viewpoints, as Leach sometimes argues. Is the Bible the word of
God, the word of human beings, or both? Leach was exploring this
territory, somewhat, when he contrasted the deMille version of divine
revelation with the possibility that the Ten Commandments were a
Midianite priestly document that Moses found. But more could have been
said. Perhaps Leach could have said that God is with God’s people and
guides them, even if it’s not through a dictation model of divine
revelation. This is a thorny and a difficult issue, and it would
probably have been difficult for Leach to do complete justice to it in a
book that had other goals: to introduce people to the Old Testament,
for example. Still, some discussion of the issue would have been
helpful, even if that discussion would have been imperfect.

E. Leach was effective in placing many of the stories of the Hebrew
Bible within their historical context and the geo-political situation of
their time.

F. Leach’s discussion of Second Isaiah and Isaiah 53 was intriguing,
yet I was unclear about how certain details held together. For Leach,
Second Isaiah was written in Judah during the exile, not in Babylon.
The prophet in Judah was proclaiming the coming return of the Jews from
exile, and his preaching of repentance was alienating fellow Jews in
Judah. That was why this prophet suffered, as is depicted in Isaiah
53. In my opinion, R.N. Whybray’s view on Isaiah 53 makes more sense:
the Servant was a prophet in Babylon proclaiming that the Persians would
conquer Babylon and the Jews would return to their land, and that upset
the Babylonians. I have difficulty envisioning why the prophet in
Judah would be persecuted. I do not casually dismiss what Leach is
saying, though, for some scholars have embraced the idea that Second
Isaiah originated in Judah.

My critiques notwithstanding, I am still giving this book five
stars. It had a clear and friendly tone. Its occasional pop-cultural
references (i.e., to Superman, and how he fit the time of the Great
Depression) made the book more relatable. It models how a person can
embrace critical scholarship of the Bible, while still being a person of
faith. It can also be a helpful introduction to the Hebrew Bible: its
contents, its historical context, the development of biblical ideas
throughout history, the diverse interpretations and applications of the
Hebrew Bible, and the questions many scholars have had about its
historicity.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest!